Can cancel File menu?
i was wondering if theres a option to cancel the file menu and add it to the softwares bar? or add it to the software bar and keep the file menu for early comming mac users that come from linux of windows.
THNX AHEAD FOR ALL HELPERS
DONT MIND MY ENGLISH I HAVE SOME PROBLOMS WITH CHECK SPELLING OPTION IT DOESNT ADD A V AFTER I PRESS IT
THNX AHEAD FOR ALL HELPERS
DONT MIND MY ENGLISH I HAVE SOME PROBLOMS WITH CHECK SPELLING OPTION IT DOESNT ADD A V AFTER I PRESS IT
Comments
Do you want to take an application's menu bar and put it in the window instead of the top of the screen?
In other words, you want to change this:
Into this?
If so, then, no, you cannot do this on a system-wide basis. Some Java apps can be configured to put their menus in the windows and X11 apps will also do this, but native Mac apps will always have their menus rooted to the top of the screen.
Originally posted by SledgeHammer
the word you're going for is uniformity. And yes, hack, as much of an adjustment as it may be from Windows, having that universal menu bar is so much better a way of doing things than menu bar implementation in Windows. Once you've adjusted, you'll love it.
its not me i like the file menu i was asking for a friend he doesnt know how to write in english sothere i was.
by the way may i ask another question? why does the new computers from apple cannot boot from os 9? i mean its just better processor with some extra ram and its sdram so its os 9 supported will the new ibooks g4 933 mhz boot os 9 ? can you have duel boot panther and jagur?
is that Firefox on a macintosh with that "FILE" bar in the window itself? or its a windows/linux machine with macos theme? thnx.
its not me i like the file menu i was asking for a friend he doesnt know how to write in english sothere i was.
Fancy that he should choose you
by the way may i ask another question? why does the new computers from apple cannot boot from os 9? i mean its just better processor with some extra ram and its sdram so its os 9 supported will the new ibooks g4 933 mhz boot os 9 ? can you have duel boot panther and jagur?
OS 9 is no longer supported as a bootable OS because it has not been updated for years. The last version, 9.2.2, came on a CD with my dad's PowerBook he got in April of 2002, so it's been at least two years since OS 9 was updated. As much as many people like OS 9 (I like it too), we have to press forward and break people's dependence on OS 9. As long as it was around, lazy software developers were being lax about porting their programs to OS X. Now they're forced to because if they don't, their software will be useless.
Remember, there's always Classic mode. Oh, and for your information, here's a listing of the last machine in each line that can boot into OS 9:
PowerMac: Mirrored Drive Doors, without Firewire 800 or Bluetooth option. That includes the still selling $1300 1.25 GHz PowerMac G4.
PowerBook: Titanium. All TiBooks can boot OS 9, none of the later ones can.
iMac: All 700 MHz models, the 800 MHz Superdrive, and the 800 MHz 17". The 800 MHz Combo drive one and all later ones are OS X-only. Actually I'm not sure on the 800/Combo, but I know the 1 GHz/17" is OS X-only.
eMac: All sub-1 GHz models, as well as the 1 GHz/Combo model sold until October 2003.
iBook: All G3s.
Generally, the OS that your computer ships with will be the earliest supported OS it can run. iBook G4s can only run Panther, as they shipped with 10.3. You can have a dual-boot Jaguar/Panther system, but you'd have to partition your hard drive and install Jaguar on one and Panther on the other.
Hope this helps.
if you boot from clasic os 9 you dont have the os-x in you vines so it runes smoother.. i yet got to understand why cant new computers duel boot 9 and X
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Fancy that he should choose you
OS 9 is no longer supported as a bootable OS because it has not been updated for years. The last version, 9.2.2, came on a CD with my dad's PowerBook he got in April of 2002, so it's been at least two years since OS 9 was updated. As much as many people like OS 9 (I like it too), we have to press forward and break people's dependence on OS 9. As long as it was around, lazy software developers were being lax about porting their programs to OS X. Now they're forced to because if they don't, their software will be useless.
that means theres no way posilbly BOOTING os 9 on a new computer? i mean i dont care if os 9 isnt updated i like it very much and it realy piss me off that theres no way posible booting os-9 on a new mac or on a ibook g4
Originally posted by hack4ev3r
is that Firefox on a macintosh with that "FILE" bar in the window itself? or its a windows/linux machine with macos theme? thnx.
That's Firefox being run through a remote X-windows ssh session in X11 on Mac OS X.
that means theres no way posilbly BOOTING os 9 on a new computer? i mean i dont care if os 9 isnt updated i like it very much and it realy piss me off that theres no way posible booting os-9 on a new mac or on a ibook g4
That's right, no way at all. Development stopped for OS9 years ago. Apple made a big deal about it being dead -- dead to developers and dead to new users. There is no driver support for the new hardware in OS9; so, it won't boot.
Essentially, it's like trying to get Windows 3.1 to run on the latest and greatest hardware.
Originally posted by hack4ev3r
why do you need clasic any way when you use os-x on windows you dont have to run anything to run 3.11 applicaton.
Basically, it comes down to the fact that Mac OS X's roots are based on a completely different operating system. Mac OS X is, essentially, just a new version of the NeXTSTEP operating system. Apple bought NeXT back in the mid-1990s and started to clean up and reform NeXTSTEP to become the next big system for Macs to use.
NeXTSTEP was wholly incompatible with Mac OS. They used completely different APIs. NeXT was all built on Objective-C design whereas Mac OS was built upon old PASCAL and C design.
So, Apple's engineers had a choice when they were developing Mac OS X. They could either stick by the new system alone and provide zero backwards compatibility or they could try to compromise it with some dirty hacks. They chose to do the latter, but in a way that isn't really so "dirty".
Apple's engineers came up with two API sets. Cocoa would be the existing API from the NeXTSTEP heritage. Carbon would be a new API that took a lot of the old Mac OS APIs and cleaned them up to work in the new operating system. To use Carbon, though, developers would still have to update their original code slightly and release updated versions of their programs. This was still greatly favorable to using Cocoa where the developer would have to completely rewrite the program from the ground-up.
So, that got us more native programs, but then the engineers at Apple had to consider all the legacy software from years past that would never be updated again. For that, the engineers came up with the Classic environment. Classic on Mac OS X would act similar to how WINE runs on Linux. It provides a pass-through to run software that isn't compiled for the current operating system.
Windows XP actually does have a similar emulation-like system for running older apps that bridges the gap between NT and DOS/9x. It's not as noticeable to the user, though, because the Windows "compatibility mode" doesn't have as wide a gap to bridge between different operating systems as Mac OS X's "Classic environment" has.
I hope that all makes sense.
Classic as a whole is really becoming less and less important. Most people never use it. Lots of people don't even know what it is.
Originally posted by Brad
Basically, it comes down to the fact that Mac OS X's roots are based on a completely different operating system. Mac OS X is, essentially, just a new version of the NeXTSTEP operating system. Apple bought NeXT back in the mid-1990s and started to clean up and reform NeXTSTEP to become the next big system for Macs to use.
NeXTSTEP was wholly incompatible with Mac OS. They used completely different APIs. NeXT was all built on Objective-C design whereas Mac OS was built upon old PASCAL and C design.
So, Apple's engineers had a choice when they were developing Mac OS X. They could either stick by the new system alone and provide zero backwards compatibility or they could try to compromise it with some dirty hacks. They chose to do the latter, but in a way that isn't really so "dirty".
Apple's engineers came up with two API sets. Cocoa would be the existing API from the NeXTSTEP heritage. Carbon would be a new API that took a lot of the old Mac OS APIs and cleaned them up to work in the new operating system. To use Carbon, though, developers would still have to update their original code slightly and release updated versions of their programs. This was still greatly favorable to using Cocoa where the developer would have to completely rewrite the program from the ground-up.
So, that got us more native programs, but then the engineers at Apple had to consider all the legacy software from years past that would never be updated again. For that, the engineers came up with the Classic environment. Classic on Mac OS X would act similar to how WINE runs on Linux. It provides a pass-through to run software that isn't compiled for the current operating system.
Windows XP actually does have a similar emulation-like system for running older apps that bridges the gap between NT and DOS/9x. It's not as noticeable to the user, though, because the Windows "compatibility mode" doesn't have as wide a gap to bridge between different operating systems as Mac OS X's "Classic environment" has.
I hope that all makes sense.
Classic as a whole is really becoming less and less important. Most people never use it. Lots of people don't even know what it is.
say woot? lol how do you know all that thats amazing..
Originally posted by hack4ev3r
say woot? lol how do you know all that thats amazing..
That isn't impressive, that is common knowledge, you should see what else he knows!
Originally posted by ast3r3x
That isn't impressive, that is common knowledge, you should see what else he knows!
lol im dieing to see what he knows.
Originally posted by hack4ev3r
i yet got to understand why cant new computers duel boot 9 and X
No one wants to write OS 9 compatible drivers for hardware in the new machines.
Originally posted by hack4ev3r
but the power mac g4 is boot support and its almost the same hardware on the ibook g4
You mean you've opened them up and looked at the motherboards? Just accept the fact that you can't boot OS 9 on a new machine and move on. OS 9 is dead. It has been dead for years and if you're just coming to the mac and really want to make a go at learning it, you should only be concerned with using OS X. The more I read your posts the more I want to scream
"TROLL!!"
but I won't.
Originally posted by hack4ev3r
but the power mac g4 is boot support and its almost the same hardware on the ibook g4
'almost' != 'same'.
If even one chip is different, then a new driver needs to be written... and NO NEW DRIVERS ARE BEING WRITTEN FOR OS9. Period.
And no, Apple is not about to release tech data to allow others to write the drivers. If you want to give it a shot, you'll have to reverse engineer it, probably though inspecting the Darwin code and figuring out how to port that information to OS9's driver model. (To which I say: 'Ha! Good luck!')
OS9 will not be made to run on any more machines. The code is frozen and development on it has stopped.